Let’s #Compromise!

Now that Republicans have won, the Democrats are no longer saying “we won” but have switched to that all-familiar refrain of theirs when they lose: let’s compromise! I agree. Let’s compromise. To compromise, both sides need to give up something they want to get something else they want.

Let’s start the compromising by forcing the Democrats to finally live up to their past agreements.

For the Reagan 100 billion dollar tax hike, the Democrats must now provide the 300 billion dollars of non-defense budget cuts (in 1986 value dollars).

For the George Herbert Walker Bush tax hike, the Democrats must now provide the agreed upon non-defense budget cuts (in 1990 value dollars).

For the Reagan amnesty, the Democrats must now secure the southern border.

Once the above 3 compromises are finally met, we can talk… about other compromises the Democrats have not yet followed through on. There should be no further offers of compromise until the Democrats actually follow through on old promises they made and, to this point, welched on.

Pro-Life? Can’t Vote Democrat

The Editor of The First Street Journal found another lying Democrat. There are some rules of writing that say when a word is defined in part by a qualifier, the qualifier is unnecessarily redundant; therefore, it is unnecessarily redundant to add the qualifier “lying” to the word “Democrat”. Democrats win elections by lying. There is a good chance that Democrats would never have more than a small minority position in most State Legislatures and the US government without their lies. Republicans want to throw granny over the cliff. Republicans have a war on women. Republicans are all racists. Heck, the race card has been so overplayed as to not mean anything anymore. Democrats have fought for all the Civil Rights Laws we have in this country. The long list of proven Democrat lies could go on forever. So what’s so important that the Editor of The First Street Journal would point out another Democrat lying? It’s the Pro-Life nature of the Democrat. Or, rather, it’s the lie that he’s in any way Pro-Life at all.

Well, we have just found out how pro-life Senator Casey really is. The pro-abortion forces introduced S. 1696, the Women’s Health Protection Act, which is designed to eliminate state restrictions on abortion, through the entire nine months of pregnancy. It was in response to restrictions imposed in states like Texas, where abortion clinics are required to meet rigorous safety and health standards. The Texas law¹ is designed, unquestionably, to reduce the number of abortion clinics in the Lone Star State, but it was also in response to “Dr” Kermit Gosnell’s little shop of horrors. When it came time to actually vote on S. 1696, the devout Roman Catholic, pro-life Senator Casey, who represents the state in which “Dr” Gosnell was “practicing,” voted for the bill, as did every other Democrat in the Senate.²

With that vote, Senator Casey just told us, through deeds, that his words are nothing but lies. Senator Casey could have attempted to provide some “moderation,” some bit of pro-life sentiment, which he claims to have, by voting against the bill, because, in the end, the bill is both symbolic and meaningless: its chance of passage by the Republican-controlled House of Representatives is infinitesimally small.

If you’re Pro-Life, you cannot vote Democrat. Because Democrats are only Pro-Life to get your vote. Afterward, they are pro-abort in every sense of the word. But you also have to be careful which Republican gets your vote. Because there’s more than one Republican who is pro-abort. And no Democrat wants you to see the photos to the left, because that might make you vote against the Democrat and against abortion on demand.

Racist Race-Traitor’s Racism Revealed

HT Smitty

Listen to the video and you’ll hear all manner of dog-whistles as this man shamelessly attacks the black man in the white house on Pennsylvania Avenue.

Or, if you have an honest bone in your body, you’ll see a man speaking a lot of truth, and absolutely incensed at the Mainstream Media’s dishonest in-the-bag for Democrat tactics. Liberals are not going to like what they see, because it destroys their lies.

Go take a gander at his site Whatever Happen To COMMON SENSE as well. I’ll be adding his site to my list of Race Traitor blogs.

Word Of Honor? Or Contract?

Which is more valuable to you? Your word of honor or a legally binding contract you sign? There is at least one modern, industrialized nation that to this day culturally values your “gentleman’s handshake” more greatly than your signature on a piece of paper. Likely, there are more than one, due to a cultural thing.

From my reading and from my experience, Japan is such a place. And I expect it’s a trans-national cultural thing, and something we used to have in the US, before people of low morals de-stigmatized breaking one’s word of honor.

In Japan, your signature on a piece of paper carries much less weight than your actual word of honor, your actual promise. If you break your promise (which would be lying), you dishonor yourself. You also dishonor your employer and your associates and your friends. But most importantly, you dishonor your family (sometimes irreparably). You become an absolute disgrace to all who have connections to you, and they will do their best to distance themselves from you. And, ya know, I think that ain’t such a bad idea, yo. If people who break promises became Pariahs, the world would become a much healthier place.

In my last Ohio job, I worked for a Japanese-owned company. A large percentage of the employees there were Japanese citizens on US work visas. They absolutely valued personal honor. They absolutely valued your word. And if you broke your word you were a disgrace, not to be trusted in anything at all.

What brought this up? That’s the wrong question, actually. As the saying goes, “the answer is only important if the right question is asked”. Who brought this up? Perry Hood brought this up. If you’ve been a follower of this site for any time, you’ll know Perry Hood is a radical Leftist “absolute relativist” who comments on The First Street Journal under the name “Wagonwheel” (generic link in deference to the blog owner, who allows anonymity, even of malignant sorts, on his site (which means this link will not trackback to any article there)). Perry Hood made a promise some time ago not to comment on my articles, in my threads. He has previously “accidentally” done so, and when called on it, he has “given permission” for me to delete his comments. But in each of the most recent three days, Perry Hood has knowingly and intentionally commented on my TFSJ articles, claiming he has chosen to retract his promise (as if that is even honorably possible).

What made the difference? Convenience. Perry Hood found it highly inconvenient to keep his promise to not comment on my articles, thus Perry Hood decided he would be Dishohorable and disgrace himself by breaking his sworn oath not to comment on my articles. And in doing so, Perry Hood tried to lay the blame on others because I have forced him to keep his promise (by deleting all or most of each of his comments) and because the site owner has given me leeway to enforce Perry Hood’s promise.

In Modern-Day Japanese culture (and likely in the culture of the entirety of the Pacific Rim, as I have found occasion to speak in-depth with a Filipino businesswoman who lives in the same culture and has traveled to the US (only to be disgusted by San Fransisco elevator eyes)), Perry Hood would be a Pariah, a disgrace to himself, his family, his associates (and his employers if he weren’t already retired), and be cast out of civilized conversation and associations, due specifically to his Dishonorable actions. But, in Modern-Day radical Leftist US culture, it’s perfectly alright to lie and make an oath that you repeatedly break later under one condition: Keeping the oath you made inconveniences you to any degree whatsoever.

So, Perry Hood, the radical Leftist, self-proclaimed “Progressive” (read Socialist) from Delaware, has declared his promises to not be worth the breath it takes to make them, if they inconvenience him in the least, and that everyone else is to blame if they even deign to hold him to his self-admitted oaths.

UPDATE
I received a query from someone on FaceBook for whom I have great respect. The query went along the lines of “Isn’t a written contract a verbal agreement, only in writing?” That is absolutely right in an American world. And the written contract holds much greater weight in an American world, because it provides proof of the agreement. I’ll note that the promise Perry Hood made was, actually, in writing and posted for the entire world to see. So, that difference does not provide a mitigating factor for Perry Hood.

But let’s take it out of the Dishonorable Perry Hood realm (where he fails on both counts) and into the hypothetical realm, comparing cultures.

In much of modern, industrialized Japan: (In many areas and in many families)

A business contract is business.
If you violate that contract, it’s business and to be dealt with as business.

If you give a personal promise, it’s you, standing there naked with just your honor to clothe you.
If you dishonor your personal promise in any way, YOU are dishonored by your own actions.
If your family does not disown you and turn you into a Pariah, your family is likewise dishonored by accepting you. And they forever live in the shame and dishonor you have heaped upon them as being family of a loathesome, dishonorable person. (Think Star Trek TNG and the Klingons.)
If your friends and acquaintances do not turn their backs on you, they, too, become dishonorable because they kept their ties with a dishonorable person.
Likewise, a business who honors the dishonorable is dishonorable.
And the snowball grows large enough to tear an automobile from the road, sending it and its occupants into destruction.

No, in some cultures, even modern industrialized cultures, it is far worse to dishonor your personal oaths than to violate your business agreements.

And that is exactly what Perry Hood did, in intentionally violating his personal oath at least 5 times in 3 consecutive days. He not only brought shame upon himself but upon all who closely affiliate themselves with him, and upon all with whom he closely affiliates himself.